As a "lowly" consumer I would refute that. The lowly consumer had no part in this. It was the over-consumer together with the banks.

// Stephen

You don't sound like the typical "lowly consumer" to me. More like a non-consumer/saver

In the USA, if you surveyed households, you would find that 90% of them carry a balance on their credit cards and/or have a home equity line of credit that they use to pay for things they consume. No savers there.

It points the finger back at the lowly consumer/home buyer rather than the big evil banks. Since I agree with this view, of course, I post it here

Falling more in the camp of non-consumer/saver, I will rarely have any pity for overspenders, but in the case of what has happened in the States and elsewhere I feel I have to come to the defense of the homeowners.

Both creditors and lenders are to blame equally, both parties needed to participate for the credit situation to have existed. Both parties were incredibly greedy and irresponsible. If the lenders weren't so greedy to a) lend to irresponsible borrowers (e.g. Half million dollar home to couples making $10/hour) and sell on those bad mortgages and if there weren't people foolish enough to take on negative amortization mortgages, we would not all be here today.

Just b/c the public may want the Roman gladiator games to return does not mean anyone is obligated to provide it. In Canada, anything beyond a 40year amortization and 5% down or 0% down and < 40years was allowed, and the former has been withdrawn as an option and we do not have a calamitous housing crisis because of it.

Sorry, but both parties have sullied hands and unfortunately even those of us, businesses and persons, who are and were responsible are all feeling the consequences because no one's lives are lived in a vacuum of eachother's actions.